[FTC]: What do you wish FTC would...

[MattRain]

What do you wish FTC would change or allow in future years? Something I was just thinking of, and wanted to know what others thought of?

Things I would like:
- LEDs that communicate without the Proto-Board
- Voltage Meters being allowed
- Small Pnuematics. (Pre-charged probably, sorta like Vex)
- Upgrade the FCS system to allow for a "The Blue Alliance" type website. (Yes, there is The Yellow Alliance, but as some know, its pretty much dead.)

What would others like to see?

[orangemoore]

An upgrade away from the NXT.

And an update of the Samantha Module.

Both are overdue.

[dcribbs]

What do you wish FTC would change or allow in future years? Something I was just thinking of, and wanted to know what others thought of?

Things I would like:
- LEDs that communicate without the Proto-Board
- Voltage Meters being allowed
- Small Pnuematics. (Pre-charged probably, sorta like Vex)
- Upgrade the FCS system to allow for a "The Blue Alliance" type website. (Yes, there is The Yellow Alliance, but as some know, its pretty much dead.)

What would others like to see?

I would love it if they would upgrade the FCS as well! If not, then just release/post the match data FIRST receives from each tournament.

[WRA]

Agree with all of the above. Sorry to hear that the yellow alliance is dead. But if I were King for a day and could change only one thing it would be to stop giving the Inspire Award to teams with great robots and nothing else. FRC is requiring (trying anyway) to require teams to at least provide supporting info in chairmans submissions. In FTC I see the Inspire Award land in the winning alliance most of the time (in my experence).

Been to 6 events this year and have talked with team members on the Inspire Award winning teams and many other teams at all of them in an attempt to learn. 1 of the teams truly Inspired me. 2 told me directly that all they did was robot. The others were good teams on and off the field but were not teams that match the award description.

My rant is over now. I absolutely Love this program and only wish the best for it.

[cadandcookies]

Agree with all of the above. Sorry to hear that the yellow alliance is dead. But if I were King for a day and could change only one thing it would be to stop giving the Inspire Award to teams with great robots and nothing else. FRC is requiring (trying anyway) to require teams to at least provide supporting info in chairmans submissions. In FTC I see the Inspire Award land in the winning alliance most of the time (in my experence).

Been to 6 events this year and have talked with team members on the Inspire Award winning teams and many other teams at all of them in an attempt to learn. 1 of the teams truly Inspired me. 2 told me directly that all they did was robot. The others were good teams on and off the field but were not teams that match the award description.

My rant is over now. I absolutely Love this program and only wish the best for it.

To be fair, the FRC Chairman's Award has a much different focus than the FTC Inspire Award-- Inspire Award winners are expected to be competitive for most if not all awards at the event, while a Chairman's Award winning team can have a mediocre to poor robot and not be a contender for other awards (unlikely, but possible).

I obviously haven't been to your competitions in West Virginia, but at our MN State Tournament yesterday, the winner was also the Inspire Award winner, and they were on the board for almost every single other award we gave out. The expectations for overall performance for Inspire Award teams at competitive events are, in my opinion, relatively higher compared to RCA in many areas.

On point with the thread: I'd love to see a new control system as well-- maybe something that eliminates the need for a central FMS altogether. I've been working on a project with linked BLE arduinos, and I feel like something similar could be quite good for FTC, especially if it lets teams use their own control system.

I'd also like to see some sort of encouragement for teams to use things that aren't Tetrix or Matrix. I get that those kits are nice for teams with few resources, but learning how to fabricate a robot using other techniques is very valuable in my opinion. That's another thing I like about how MN does judging-- we have a specific award for creating a 3D printed part, which I think encourages teams to "think outside the kit."

[MattRain]

I'd also like to see some sort of encouragement for teams to use things that aren't Tetrix or Matrix. I get that those kits are nice for teams with few resources, but learning how to fabricate a robot using other techniques is very valuable in my opinion. That's another thing I like about how MN does judging-- we have a specific award for creating a 3D printed part, which I think encourages teams to "think outside the kit."

I would like to see the same thing. My two teams are the only two teams in AZ that completely "custom" build our robots. You will see some mounts and such from the tetrix items, but other than that, it pretty much fully custom, with the tools that we have available to us. Its actually cheaper for us to do that.

[PhilBot]

Clearly we need to get away from the NXT. Based on my own testing, the EV3 is vastly more reliable re: motor and servo controllers etc (no more auto glitches), but it would also be great to move away from the Samantha module and to something smaller and not requiring a separate 12V supply.

Surely a micro USB-wi-fi interface would be great if the network requirements could be satisfied.

It also does seem like the time has come to permit more custom sensor interfaces. There are a lot of fun sensor (eg: Pixie cam) that would be great to interface to the EV3 via I2C or SPI

I personally don't think that moving to a Raspberry Pi or Beagle Bone solution would be a good idea simply because these boards don't have any of the mechanical robustness that FTC requires. FTAs would be spending all their time debugging software and hardware issues.

Maybe NI can give us a mini roboRIO.

Phil

[ForgotSemicolon]

I wish that the announcers at lower level competitions were more knowledgeable about the game. If FIRST wants robotics to be a "spectator sport", they need to have announcers who are fully aware of the rules and strategies.

[cadandcookies]

I wish that the announcers at lower level competitions were more knowledgeable about the game. If FIRST wants robotics to be a "spectator sport", they need to have announcers who are fully aware of the rules and strategies.

Totally agree. Nothing kills an event like a game announcer/emcee that doesn't know what they're talking about.

In my opinion the best announcers for qualifiers tend to be alumni or people who have worked with FTC in the past. Even if they aren't entirely knowledgeable about that year's game, they at least have a frame of reference from previous competitions.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Take out the T and bring back the V.

[cadandcookies]

Take out the T and bring back the V.

Hah. If VEX would open up to using more custom / non-VEX COTS parts, I could support this.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

This is what I sent FTC HQ a while ago...
R10
Add under R10: Samantha power be wired to the output of the robot power switch using legal connections per R10-c.


And under R10-d, paragraph i. should read:
i. All power wiring (Battery, power switch and power inputs to motor controllers) are 16 AWG or larger.


Additionally, RG10 and R08 do not allow a 9 volt battery for the Samantha module power as shown in the Samantha User Guide.


Many teams wire the Samantha module power to the last motor controller in the chain as this is an easy spot. Teams that are using Anderson Power Pole muti-tap connectors (See West Mountain Radio and others) Will wire the Samantha to one of those outputs. Wiring at the end of the chain will virtually guarantee power brownout on the Samantha.
Also, too many teams are using #22 wire to feed the motor and servo controllers. To keep voltage normal, this should be #16 or larger on my opinion.
I do not believe in performance being part of the consideration for judged awards. Teams that have a bad day, have a driver absent for family commitments or illness or some other reason will loose out on a deserved award simply because their performance suffered that one day. I have hated this for many years at the FLL level. A team that deserves to win the Inspire award should win the Inspire Award. Otherwise teams that are not as deserving may be given the awards and that is also wrong.

[safiq10]

I would love to see a hybrid period, just think of all the intresting possibilities!

Getting away from the NXT and Samantha also would be great! I would love if they made using ardiunos much simplier instead of having to wire it through a protoboard.

[wgardner]

Things I'd like to see. Some might be controversial.

. A way to make sure that rookie teams with limited financing can be competitive. Maybe a financial limit to the amount that can be spent on the robot? I have seen some teams from underserved communities pack it in after one season when they see what other teams are spending and when they realize that they can't compete financially. I don't want to see this become a sport for only rich kids.

. An electrical kit of parts that is robust out of the box and doesn't require replacing battery connectors, adding ferrite cores, surge protectors, ferrules, and/or special bracing to connectors, or reading 25 page documents to figure out how to make the wiring robust.

. Games with clear, unambiguous rules. The fewer the judgement calls that refs have to make (e.g., "was that inadvertent and inconsequential contact with the ball tube or not?"), the better.

. Games where good autonomous robots that take many sessions to perfect cannot be blocked by robots with simple defensive routines that take 5 minutes to code.

. No adult coaches on the playing field.

. Live scoring would make FTC more spectator friendly, but I can see how that would potentially require many more volunteers. Maybe an option for allowing this to happen in cases where those volunteers are available?

. The requirement that teams compete in only one state or regional championship. It seems unfair that some teams in smaller northeast states, for example, can compete in the NJ, PA, DE, MD, and VT championships to earn the right to compete in the super regional, while teams located in the middle of large states don't have the same ability without lots of extra cost or effort. If teams can only compete in one super regional, why should they be able to compete in multiple regional championships? Ideally, if you've qualified to compete in your state championship, you should have to compete in only that championship.

. Updates to the game manual in cases where the rules have been changed from what the game manual says. Many forum rulings are clarifications that don't require game manual updates, but some are truly rule changes. For the rule changes, FIRST should update the manual so it's clear what the rules are. And ideally, the game video should accurately show the game too. :)

. A field that can be built from scratch using readily available parts and clear instructions written by the FTC folks. Then if companies like AndyMark want to market pre-built fields for teams or tournaments, they can. But having a single source for field structures this season wasn't great. And while we're on that topic...

. Robust field structures. No flimsy ramps that break or get bent, rivets that pop out, etc.

. Anti-static spray being required on the fields (or perhaps being required if the humidity is below a certain level), or fields being replaced with a new anti-static surface.

Just my opinions. Probably not the majority opinion... :)

[MattRain]

Things I'd like to see. Some might be controversial.

1. A way to make sure that rookie teams with limited financing can be competitive. Maybe a financial limit to the amount that can be spent on the robot? I have seen some teams from underserved communities pack it in after one season when they see what other teams are spending and when they realize that they can't compete financially. I don't want to see this become a sport for only rich kids.

2. An electrical kit of parts that is robust out of the box and doesn't require replacing battery connectors, adding ferrite cores, surge protectors, ferrules, and/or special bracing to connectors, or reading 25 page documents to figure out how to make the wiring robust.

3. Live scoring would make FTC more spectator friendly, but I can see how that would potentially require many more volunteers. Maybe an option for allowing this to happen in cases where those volunteers are available?

4. Updates to the game manual in cases where the rules have been changed from what the game manual says. Many forum rulings are clarifications that don't require game manual updates, but some are truly rule changes. For the rule changes, FIRST should update the manual so it's clear what the rules are. And ideally, the game video should accurately show the game too. :)

5. A field that can be built from scratch using readily available parts and clear instructions written by the FTC folks. Then if companies like AndyMark want to market pre-built fields for teams or tournaments, they can. But having a single source for field structures this season wasn't great. And while we're on that topic...

6. Robust field structures. No flimsy ramps that break or get bent, rivets that pop out, etc.

7. Anti-static spray being required on the fields (or perhaps being required if the humidity is below a certain level), or fields being replaced with a new anti-static surface.

Just my opinions. Probably not the majority opinion... :)

1. I can see both sides to this. While my team does make robots that are highly competitive and "custom" we spend very little money on the robot. Over the years, our students have reached out to different companies, and have been able to keep those companies as sponsors. They have been able to get metal from one company, plastic from another, and screws/bots/fasteners from another. I'm highly proud of what they have been able to do. Creating a highly custom robot with very little over head. Yes, both of my teams have switched to Andymark motors, but why wouldn't you if they are allowed. We make it a point in Arizona that if any team, whether it be rookie or veteran, that if they need tetrix parts, stock metal, or a field to practice on, that they are more than welcome to come by the shop and grab some or practice.

But back to the point of what you were saying, I wouldn't mind having a financial limit for teams. Just keep in mind that some teams may have the outreach done to companies like we have.

2. Yes, this needs to happen. It comes back to a money issue again, where some teams may not be able to afford to make it robust... it should come that way.

3. It would be nice to have this. I love having it in FRC. (I mentor a community team, not related to my FTC teams)

4. I agree that the video should be correct in every form... even if it has to be redone after a few weeks from kickoff, to show the changes that may happen from rule changes.

5. and 6. FTC needs to go back to a field that teams can build. Spending 450 dollars on a field that can only be used for a year is just not good in FTC. I understand it for FRC, but FTC has been great with the wooden elements that we have seen for the past few years. Along with the fact that the FTC robots are playing on a foam tile field that creates a huge amount of static, and then to put metal ramps that fall apart and create a grounding on the field that can potentially shut a robot off, (and I have seen it happen) just isn't good. Our team decided this year to not buy the whole field, but to reach out to the Regional Contacts to see if we could "store" one of the practice fields down in the metro area where most of the teams are located in Arizona, and where most of the quailfers where being held, and they had no problem with giving us a field, as long as we traveled it to each qualifier in the state. Travel this field this year was a pain. Parts as you have said, just were not robust, and the fact that we could not break down the elements because of pop-rivets just wasn't cool. This field would barely fit in my little Kia Soul..(yes a small car), but for FTC, a field should be able to fit in any car that size or bigger semi easy.

7. Without the static spray this year on the fields, our two robots from my teams would not have done well. In our workshop, we did not spray the field in the beginning, and had a lot of static problems. The later half of our season, we started spraying, and saw a large drop in the amount of times a robot would shock. (autonomous being the worst time to shock as it would restart the encoders and redo the last step, usually running the robot into the wall or completely locking it up.) The Static spray should be enforced at all of the events.

[BSV]

I've been told (not sure I was suppose to be told, but so were many others, so it's out there) that the NXT/Samantha is done, that they are moving on to something else, and the announcement will be made "any day now". Of course, that was a month ago, so maybe something has changed. I'd expect to see it at St. Louis. I wouldn't have said anything at all about this, except that it's obvious that the NXTs are at the end of their support cycle and need to be replaced, and that the replacement might not be EV3s because I think we would have seen some field tests with EV3s by now. FLL will be starting their 3rd year with EV3s in August, so why not FTC? Watching the RobotC code change logs, it seems like work is still heavily underway to support the EV3 -- there are a ton of changes every week -- and it does not seem to be ready, yet. So maybe they are going a different direction.

The static thing is horrible and killed our robot multiple time at the regional championship despite making sure we followed the wiring, surge protector, and other suggestions very closely AND that it didn't happen at two previous competitions nor on our own field. Maybe the humidity was really low that day -- I don't know. It happened to at least one other team that we know of as well.

I didn't mind purchasing the field kit - it saved a lot of time and ensured were using the standard configuration -- but the price didn't seem justified for the cheap quality of the materials. We did share it with multiple teams, so I may have felt different if I was trying to support one team and couldn't share the cost.

[wgardner]

I didn't mind purchasing the field kit - it saved a lot of time and ensured were using the standard configuration -- but the price didn't seem justified for the cheap quality of the materials. We did share it with multiple teams, so I may have felt different if I was trying to support one team and couldn't share the cost.

I think that the field kit is a great option, and one that a lot of teams might choose. But I think teams and tournaments should have the option of building their own, and maybe there should even be multiple places that could sell a kit?

[cadandcookies]

I think that the field kit is a great option, and one that a lot of teams might choose. But I think teams and tournaments should have the option of building their own, and maybe there should even be multiple places that could sell a kit?

This year's field had a DIY version available on the game page on the FIRST site. (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/ftc/game)

It wasn't exactly hidden that there was an alternative to buying an AndyMark field.

[wgardner]

This year's field had a DIY version available on the game page on the FIRST site. (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/ftc/game)

It wasn't exactly hidden that there was an alternative to buying an AndyMark field.

But the DIY kit was made from different materials which gave it a different coefficient of friction on the ramp, for example, so it was not really the same field. Honestly, it seemed like it was an afterthought when folks asked for it.

That's different from coming up with a field specification that you can make or purchase, where the result is identical, and then having AndyMark or other vendors build their field to the same spec as everybody else.

And there were no DIY options for rolling goals. Rolling goals could have been cut from wood with rotating caster wheels, but having custom molded plastic shapes made it essentially impossible to build 100% spec compliant versions.

[Scott_4140]

But if I were King for a day and could change only one thing it would be to stop giving the Inspire Award to teams with great robots and nothing else.

The Judging requirements for the Inspire Award have been adjusted from previous years. The rubrics have been eliminated all together. The guidance in the Judge Manual now states:

"Once the list has been created, the winner and finalists of the Inspire Award must be determined. The Judges should look over the top contenders for the other Awards, and if these same Teams are repeated throughout multiple Award categories. At this point, it will be clear on which Teams should be placed into the Category of Inspire Award."

What may be throwing off some Judges is the reference to "Team will have demonstrated success in accomplishing the task of creating a working and competitive robot." Many try to use Qual Points or Rank to make this determination. I believe this to be wrong. You can have a competitive robot and have a bad day. That's the way we judge in MN.

MN Judge Advisor

[Billfred]

I was a volunteer in the Vex era--I refereed the Championship finals of Half-Pipe Hustle. After several years away due to limited time available, I've been a game announcer in South Carolina the past two years now.

It does seem like the control system on the robots is a little cobbled together, akin to the old cRIO system in FRC but up a notch. The end-to-end system leads to spontaneous robot dropouts, unexplainable difficulties that knock an event from two fields to one, teams not running because they picked the wrong program on the NXT, replays because hyped-up kids knock out a USB hub, and if I ever hear "Select Red 1 Driver 1" again... It just doesn't seem that VRC has these issues!

I don't think integrating Vex's control system is necessarily the answer without a wholesale change in FTC's electrical system, but they do have the bogey to hit. Robots that work well and events that don't have murderous field delays are an express ticket to rewarding, satisfying competition experiences.

[Nemo]

My wishlist:

1) Better microcontroller: less glitchy, more storage space, more input/output ports, faster processor

2) LabView implementation with less bugs

3) Better wireless module: less flaky electrical connections, less expensive, less availability issues, smaller

4) DC Motor controllers with lower failure rate

5) Easier / better ways to use non-Lego sensors

6) Motors without gearboxes attached and/or gear motors with smaller reductions and/or rules that permit removal of gearbox from gear motors

7) Smaller 0.80 module gears (such as 20 tooth) for Tetrix motor shafts

8) Rules prohibiting defensive autonomous strategies in which robots run into or block opposing robots

9) Lower points for major penalties - the values are insanely high for certain penalties every year, and it ruins many matches

10) Better visibility for the crowd somehow - not sure how to do this except by using screens and cameras, but it is an important issue in FTC

11) Game design that makes the games comprehensible to casual fans

12) Fix the weird wheel tread traction test guideline wherein you run it at a stall and fry the motors during inspection

13) Keep the excellent rule changes that simplified inspections and broadly opened up the allowable materials

[jcarr]

1. Have a longer autonomous. Most of the interesting and challenging programming work centers around autonomous. The last couple of years, they have restricted the number of points that can be scored and limited the time. If there was more time, people could run routines that looked for blocking robots and avoided them. If their were more points available and more time, the game could be won in autonomous - a powerful incentive for the programming team.

Maybe add an ability to the FCS operator to cut short the autonomous if all the teams indicate their autonomous is done, so we are not waiting for 45 seconds after a robot runs down the ramp. Head ref could ask the teams to put up their hands when their robot is done, then ask the FCS operator to kill autonomous and move to teleop.

[aklego]

Maybe add an ability to the FCS operator to cut short the autonomous if all the teams indicate their autonomous is done, so we are not waiting for 45 seconds after a robot runs down the ramp. Head ref could ask the teams to put up their hands when their robot is done, then ask the FCS operator to kill autonomous and move to teleop.

This is a really good idea and would move things along, especially in the early part of the season.

[PHFTC]

I'd like to see as much emphasis as FLL to keep adult hands off the bot. What do you say when the kids are sitting around the pit while the mentor is elbows deep?

I'd also like to see a requirement for the notebook to show the entire build. Many successful bots have been with teams for several years, that's hard for a school class which starts with a box of parts to compete with.

Financial considerations to keep it available & competitive to as wide of an audience as possible - a chance for less established teams to perform well and not get discouraged.

[MattRain]

Another things that I would like to see FTC improve on is awards, specifically the banners. FRC teams get a banner for Chairman's, as well as the Winning Alliance, and Woody Flowers according to the steam I was watching this past weekend. Why is it that only the Inspire Award gets one in FTC?

[Loose Screw]

I would like to see more Jr. High teams. I personally believe FTC to be a smaller version of FRC that acts as a sort of bridge between FLL and FRC. Sizing cube, motor limit, auto-teleop matches, alliances, qual/final matches, drive team, awards, and games are very similar to FRC, but scaled down in a way.

FTC and FRC bots have to start in a sizing box, but FTC has less restrictions than FRC typically has.

FTC bots are limited to a set amount of motors of (usually) one type, where FRC has many different types of motors, each with a limited amount (CIMS, ect).

FTC and FRC share the auto-teleop match system, but FRC has a shorter auto period.

FTC and FRC both have alliances for matches, but FTC only has alliances of two where FRC has three.

FTC has four alliance captains in finals, whereas FRC has eight. The pick order slightly differs where FTC picks 1234 1234, where FRC picks 12345678 87654321.

The drive teams are exactly the same, except for FRC has an additional human player.

The FRC games usually focus on one task with associated parts (stack totes to earn more points from RC), where FTC has multiple objectives of somewhat equal value (balls into rolling goals, rolling goals up ramps, center goal).

It is FIRST's goal to see a FRC team in every high school, and with that logic I would like to see a FTC team in every jr. high school.